Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38304390›Full record

ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2024

Estimates of use of preferred contraceptive method in the United States: a population-based study.

Anu Manchikanti Gomez, Ariana H Bennett, Jennet Arcara, Lisa Stern, Jamie Bardwell, Denicia Cadena, Aisha Chaudhri, Laura Davis, Christine Dehlendorf, Brittni Frederiksen and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
18.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Anu Manchikanti GomezSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Ariana H BennettSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Jennet ArcaraSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Lisa SternCoalition to Expand Contraceptive Access, Washington, DC, USA.
Jamie BardwellConverge, Ridgeland, MS, USA.
Denicia CadenaIndependent Consultant, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Aisha ChaudhriIllinois Caucus for Adolescent Health, Chicago, IL, USA.
Laura DavisAdvocates for Youth, Washington, DC, USA.
Christine DehlendorfPerson-Centered Reproductive Health Program, Departments of Family & Community Medicine, Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Brittni FrederiksenKFF, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Catherine LabiranIndependent Consultant, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Raegan McDonald-MosleyPower to Decide, Washington, DC, USA.
Whitney S RiceCenter for Reproductive Health Research in the Southeast, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Tara B SteinNew York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY, USA.
Ena Suseth ValladaresCalifornia Latinas for Reproductive Justice, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Megan L KavanaughGuttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Cassondra MarshallSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
University of California, Berkeley · USAdvocates for Youth · USBerkeley Public Health Division · USCalifornia Latinas for Reproductive Justice · USCoalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations · USEmory University · USGuttmacher Institute · USKaiser Family Foundation · USNew York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene · USRadiology Associates of Albuquerque · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In the U.S. and globally, dominant metrics of contraceptive access focus on the use of certain contraceptive methods and do not address self-defined need for contraception; therefore, these metrics fail to attend to person-centeredness, a key component of healthcare quality. This study addresses this gap by presenting new data from the U.S. on preferred contraceptive method use, a person-centered contraceptive access indicator. Additionally, we examine the association between key aspects of person-centered healthcare access and preferred contraceptive method use. Methods: We fielded a nationally representative survey in the U.S. in English and Spanish in 2022, surveying non-sterile 15-44-year-olds assigned female sex at birth. Among current and prospective contraceptive users (unweighted n = 2119), we describe preferred method use, reasons for non-use, and differences in preferred method use by sociodemographic characteristics. We conduct logistic regression analyses examining the association between four aspects of person-centered healthcare access and preferred contraceptive method use. Findings: A quarter (25.2%) of current and prospective users reported there was another method they would like to use, with oral contraception and vasectomy most selected. Reasons for non-use of preferred contraception included side effects (28.8%), sex-related reasons (25.1%), logistics/knowledge barriers (18.6%), safety concerns (18.3%), and cost (17.6%). In adjusted logistic regression analyses, respondents who felt they had enough information to choose appropriate contraception (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 3.31; 95% CI 2.10, 5.21), were very (AOR 9.24; 95% CI 4.29, 19.91) or somewhat confident (AOR 3.78; 95% CI 1.76, 8.12) they could obtain desired contraception, had received person-centered contraceptive counseling (AOR 1.72; 95% CI 1.33, 2.23), and had not experienced discrimination in family planning settings (AOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.13, 2.20) had increased odds of preferred contraceptive method use. Interpretation: An estimated 8.1 million individuals in the U.S. are not using a preferred contraceptive method. Interventions should focus on holistic, person-centered contraceptive access, given the implications of information, self-efficacy, and discriminatory care for preferred method use. Funding: Arnold Ventures.

Indexed as

ContraceptionFamily planningHealth care accessHealth care qualityPerson-centerednessUnited StatesUnmet need

Identifiers

PMID38304390
PMCPMC10831268
OpenAlexW4391074595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.